Which is the point of view I’ve been coming from. I don’t care about the future information either. In fact, I quite like it, except for the people who instantly declaim it as canon. As for the background information, that’s good & helpful, too.

But as Jo’s interview on Pottercast shows, the author may not even have her own background information right. She always thought Hannah Abbott was pureblood even though her school notebook from years ago shows her as muggleborn? So, she’ll settle for calling her halfblood. And the fact that she herself doesn’t even know how to interpret the missing 24 hours.

Which is why in doing critical analysis more credence has to be given to what is actually written for public consumption & is considered to be the “received” text, I guess, than the author’s statements. But not that the author’s statements are unimportant; just not necessarily definitive.

So, I don’t think we’re all that far apart in our view of this. I think we’ve just been focusing on different angles of it.

Matthew, I strongly got the same feeling from the interview that you did: the regret at the ending of the story, the generosity at wanting to share more of the story, and – most interestingly – her realization that she needs to let this go before it becomes all consuming. The look on her face, and her hesitation, before she answers the question about writing more Potter, was incredibly expressive of her ambivalence on this issue. I hope, for her sake as an author of future books, that she finds the resolution to let go of Potter.

Travis, completely agree that there are different types of pronouncements, and that it does make a difference for this debate (should she / shouldn’t she?) which ones we’re talking about. I for one am totally ok with background and future information, although I take the former a tad more seriously than the latter, because it has (through the author’s imagination) already informed the canon, whereas I view what happens in the future as conjectural, unless and until she writes it down. We don’t know how committed JKR is to her conjectures, and it could easily change in the writing, I think.

The interpretation of the “facts” is the one area where I can see more eye-to-eye with the school of thought which says that the author’s interpretation is important, but not the end-all and be-all. At least, for the examples that you have cited.

I interpret that as meaning that she didn’t want others imagining something that just wasn’t “true”.

Yes, I agree…she’s saying she wants her version of what happens in the future to be official. She’s got every right to that, of course, but I’m just not sure it’s official (or “true”) unless she decides to publish more novels about her Wizarding World. I’ve never been a fan of fan fiction…but I see the value in it. And the more she talks, the more she takes that away; and the kicker about that is the fact that she’s made statements saying that what she did with the novels left plenty of room for fan fiction. She seems to keep taking that room away.

There are definitely a few different types of pronouncements that Rowling is making. There are those about a character’s background that find no direct link to her published canon (“Dumbledore is gay”); there are interpretive statements (“Dumbledore is Machiavellian,” “Snape is not a hero,” “Snape is a hero,” “Snape is not really a hero”); and there are the statements about what happens in the “future” (a future for which there is no canon, currently).

So parsing out the difference between these types of statements probably makes a difference in this overall conversation.

I don’t think that she is trying to interpret her work for us… on the whole. Of course there example of this happening blatantly. What I think she is doing is trying to let us in on more of the grand story – of which her published novels are only a fraction.

I also disagree that it is a question of her interpretation verses the readers. I thinks its a question of her satisfaction with the story revealed thus far. I think she’s a generous author who wants to share her story more completly.

Rowling seems to have reached a point where she has realised that she NEEDS to leave the writing of more Harry stuff alone. I think she realises that this story could become all-consuming of her creative powers.

Am I making sense and/or out on my own on this one?

Matthew

And just telling us to ignore her comments & read it with one’s own private interpretation doesn’t solve the problem either. Because if one wants to discuss the books, one will always be hit over the head with JKR’s dictates.

After having watched the interview, I think that JKR is insisting not as much as about her right to exegesis, but her right to say what happened next. She explains that she was working so fast that when the books came to an end, she – her imagination – couldn’t stop. She kept imagining what would happen next. And she says:

“I would like my version to be the official version, because it’s my world.”

I interpret that as meaning that she didn’t want others imagining something that just wasn’t “true”.

There is a difference, in my mind, between saying what really happened or what happened next, and interpreting what that means. The information JKR has given us so far – that Dumbledore was gay, who did what and married whom afterwards, and whether King’s Cross was an objective or subjective experience – all fall under saying what happened or what really happened. They are all “factual” (albeit fictional), and not a matter of interpretation. In my admittedly inexpert opinion, interpretation involves looking deeper into the meaning of things. Thus for example, JKR tells us that George married Angelina. She mentions that Angelina used to be Fred’s girl, and wonders about what that means, and whether they could have been happy. That is when she moves into interpretation. And you can tell, by the reflective tone in her voice, that she’s not certain about this, because there are different ways of interpreting why those two characters ended up together.

But more importantly, what JKR is doing is, as far as I know, unprecedented in literature: through the span of seven novels and through the medium of modern communications, she has established an ongoing and almost interactive relationship with her readership. It is this relationship which she refuses to let die, which is putting a spanner in the works of the “old road”: the author toils in solitude and having produced the book, looks upon in silence as readers and critics digest and pronounce.

That is why I quoted the Dylan song: the times are changing. He wrote about politics, but there is no reason – and considerable historical precedent – for me to take it out of that context and apply it to the present: the right to exegesis of the novel.

But if we’re applying the song, then I might also suggest that, historically speaking, the idea that the author’s “intent” is the authoritative meaning of the book is the “old road” that is “rapidly aging” in this situation.

Let me also clarify that, ideally, I don’t necessarily think Rowling should be not allowed to talk about her books. There are at least three issues here for me: (1) A published work belongs to the readers and the author, not the author alone; which means Rowling’s, “I want the final say because it’s my world” isn’t true once a work of literature is public; (2) I, personally, wish she’d let the published canon speak for itself and leave the rest for the readers; (3) I’d be perfectly fine with Rowling saying whatever she wants if the rest of the world didn’t say, “well, that settles that issue” – meaning, every time Rowling speaks, another area of interpretation is taken away.

It just feels like, at this rate, we’re going to have Rowling publishing a line-by-line exegetical commentary, or a Harry Potter Study Version with interpretive notes by the author side by side with the text.

I certainly hope that you & HP Progs do not stop podcasting anytime soon. I always thought you guys were doing the best analysis & commentary on the books & the phenomenon of HP. Well, Pottercast does an excellent job at times, too. But who knows how long they’ll continue? So, keep up the good work & try not to let real life interfere with the important business of putting out pubcasts.

I do not say Jo has to be silent, although I think it best if she was. Or I think it best if she just sat down & wrote her “definitive” version. If she wants total control of her world, fine. Just don’t expect anybody else to be interested in it very much anymore. Let her speak all she wants; I just am losing any desire to critically read her works & try to delve into them for deeper meaning. If the artist tells me exactly what the painting is, why look at the painting? If the songwriter tells me exactly what the song means, why listen to it? If the author tells me exactly how to read her work, then why read it over & over again?

Sorry for the belligerent tone; it’s late & I’m just finishing OOTP which is kind of an emotional roller coaster all by itself without anything else added in.